PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES IN MALISEET-PASSAMAQUODDY1

PHILIP S. LESOURD

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

2

This article provides an analysis of the prepositional phrases of

Maliseet-Passamaquoddy, an Eastern Algonquian language of New

Brunswick and Maine. It establishes that these phrases may function as

constituents, even though they are frequently discontinuously expressed,

demonstrates that they are headed by the particles that characterize them,

and explores their internal structure. This structure is shown to be parallel

to that of noun phrases in the language: phrases of both types include an

optional determiner that is sister to a subconstituent consisting of the head

and any complement it may take, together with any modifiers. These

conclusions are of interest since Algonquian languages have been

suspected of lacking hierarchical constituent structure.

[Keywords: Algonquian, Maliseet-Passamaquoddy, particles, phrase

structure, prepositional phrases]

3

1. Introduction. The prepositional phrase (PP) has received relatively little

attention in work on Algonquian languages, with the notable exception of useful

discussions of the subject in two studies of Innu-aimun particles, as uninflected words in

Algonquian languages are termed, by Oxford (2008, 2011).2 The present article is

intended to complement Oxford’s work by providing an account of the structure of the PP

in Maliseet-Passamaquoddy (ISO code: pqm), an Eastern Algonquian language spoken in

two dialects, Maliseet (Mal.) in New Brunswick and Passamaquoddy (Pass.) in Maine.3 I

focus on locative phrases like the bolded expression in (1a). Temporal expressions like

the PP in (1b) are generally parallel in structure and will receive only brief mention.

There are also PPs that are used to express comparisons, like the one in (1c). These differ

in certain respects, however, and my remarks in this article are not intended to cover

them.4

(1a) Qotŏpùt ŏté [PP asìt imiyew-ikŭwám-ok].

chair be.located-(3) in.back pray-building-LOC

‘The chair is at the rear of the church.’ (Pass., Francis and Leavitt 2008:82)5

(1b) ’Kac-ipt-uw-á-nĭ-ya ’tús-ŭwa-l pilèy

(3)-hide-carry-TA-DIR-N (3)-daughter-3PL-OBV.SG new

’t-atŏmupíl-om [PP tokkìw nekòm ’kisk-úm-ok].

3-car-POSS to him/her (3)-day-POSS-LOC

‘They hid their daughter’s new car until her birthday.’ (Pass., Francis and

Leavitt 2008:145-46)

4

(1c) N-témis l-ikápŭwu [PP ánsa pŏmawsuwìn].

1-dog thus-stand-(3) like person

‘My dog stands up like a person (i.e., on his hind legs).’ (Pass., Francis and

Leavitt 2008:238)

Emonds (1972:547-555) and Jackendoff (1973:345-348) have demonstrated that

English (ISO code: eng) has intransitive prepositions, as in walk up, as well as

prepositions taking complements, as in walk up the stairs. Many Maliseet-

Passamaquoddy prepositions may likewise occur with or without a complement, as we

can see by comparing pairs of sentences like (2) and (3). In (2a), neqìw ‘underneath’

appears without an accompanying NP. In (2b), the same particle is followed by ŏqítŏn-uk

‘canoe’, a noun with locative inflection.6 Similarly, lamìw ‘in, under’ is used without a

complement in (3a), but is accompanied by a locative NP in (3b).

(2a) Pun-à-n walŏtí-yik [PP neqìw].

put-DIR-2IMP dish-PROX.PL underneath

‘Put the dishes down below.’ (Pass., Francis and Leavitt 2008:326)

(2b) Pom-ŏqoté-he áhkiq [PP neqìw ŏqítŏn-uk].

along-underwater-go-(3) seal underneath canoe-LOC

‘The seal swims along under the canoe.’ (Pass., Francis and Leavitt

2008:440)

5

(3a) Nekè nukcoktóh-o-k pŏnápsq, eci=mil-ŏcíhte-k

then.PAST smash-TH-3AN rock very=various-be.color-3IN

[PP lamìw].

inside

‘When he smashed the rock, it was all different colors inside.’ (Pass.,

Francis and Leavitt 2008:353)

(3b) Ali=ksihkéhe [PP lamìw piskúwŏn-ok].

around=be.lost-(3) inside fog-LOC

‘He is lost in the fog.’ (Pass., Francis and Leavitt 2008:424)

Jackendoff (1973:348-350) and Emonds (1985:32-33) have noted that English

prepositions may take PPs as their complements, as in John is from near St. Louis. We

find the same thing in Maliseet-Passamaquoddy, as we see in (4). Here tokkìw ‘to,

toward’ takes as its complement a PP headed by olŏqìw ‘toward, near’. (Note that tokkìw

appears as tokkì in this Maliseet example: final w is often dropped in Maliseet in casual

speech.)

(4) Nìt weci=mace=kskomhíke-t

there from=begin=take.short.cut-3AN

[PP tokkì [PP tètt olŏqìw Sipayìk]]

toward that.way near Pleasant.Point.LOC

6

psì nìt elŏm-ahkŏmík-e-k sopayì supék-uk.

all there away-land-II-3IN along sea-LOC

‘From there he set off across land toward over near Pleasant Point (Me.)

where the territory extends all along the sea.’ (Mal., LeSourd

2007:130)7

Maliseet-Passamaquoddy prepositions may follow their complements rather than

preceding them, that is, they may function as postpositions rather than prepositions. The

examples in (5) show this for the preposition qihìw ‘near, next to’ in cases involving NP

complements: the object precedes the preposition in (5a) but follows it in (5b).

(5a) Etŏl-askuwási-t psúwis [PP qihìw apiqsehsŭw-álŏk-uk].

location-wait-3AN cat near rat-hole-LOC

‘There is a cat waiting near the rat-hole.’ (Pass., Francis and Leavitt

2008:551)

(5b) [PP Moshún-ok qihìw] tucéssu kcissúwan.

(3)-heart-LOC near go.by-(3) bullet

‘The bullet passed close to his heart.’ (Pass., Francis and Leavitt 2008:470)

The particle olŏqìw ‘toward, near’ functions as a preposition with an NP

complement in (4) above. In (6a), it takes a prepositional phrase with an intransitive

preposition as its complement, which it follows. In (6b), a first occurrence of olŏqìw

7

serves as a preposition taking a prepositional phrase as its complement, in which a second

occurrence of olŏqìw functions as a postposition.

(6a) Nìt=ŏlu yèt ŏpì-n, [PP yèt [PP asìt] olŏqìw],

then=but there.DIST sit-2SG there.DIST in.back toward

naka kìl=ŏte k-pom-isúki-n.

and you.sg=EMPH 2-along-paddle-N

‘So sit over there, over there in the stern, and you yourself will paddle.’

(Mal., LeSourd 2007:70)

(6b) Elŏm-iyá-hti-t elŏm-iyá-hti-t [PP wàht olŏqì

away-go-PROX.PL-3AN away-go-PROX.PL-3AN far toward

[PP Mattènk olŏqìw]].

Matane.LOC near

‘They traveled and traveled, out toward near Matane (Que.).’ (Mal.,

LeSourd 2007:90)

Prepositional phrases may also be discontinuously expressed, as shown in (7),

where the two segments of the phrase in question are labeled “a” and “b.” This situation

is not particularly surprising, since discontinuous constituents of other types (such as

NPs) are commonplace in Maliseet-Passamaquoddy, as in other Algonquian languages

(LeSourd 2004, Dahlstrom 1987). But taking note of examples like (7), Bruening

(2001:52) has suggested that it may not be appropriate to analyze apparent PPs in

8

Passamaquoddy as constituents. Thus, the first goal of the present article is to justify the

claim that continuously expressed prepositional phrases in Maliseet-Passamaquoddy are

syntactic units. This issue is addressed in section 2.

(7) Etuci- nìt -l-éyi-k, [PPa qihìw]=oc kt-ì

at.point- that -thus-happen-3IN near=FUT 2-be.located

[PPb k-sílhuss w-ík-ok].

2-father.in.law 3-house-LOC

‘When that happens, you will be near your father-in-law’s house.’8 (Pass.,

Mitchell 1976:12)

A second and more fundamental issue that requires comment is the question of

the categorial status of prepositions and prepositional phrases. What I have been calling

prepositions have generally been analyzed by Algonquianists as adverbial particles

(Bloomfield 1962:439). Sherwood (1986:103) has in fact suggested that what I take to be

locative PPs in Maliseet examples comparable to (1a) or (2b) actually involve adverbial

modifiers of locative nouns in adverbial function, not prepositions taking locative NP

complements. My second goal in this article, then, is to show that the locative

expressions under discussion here are indeed headed by the particles that characterize

them, that the accompanying nouns are the complements of these particles, and that these

structures are thus best analyzed as prepositional phrases. This is the subject of section 3.

9

The third issue that I address is the internal structure of prepositional phrases.

These frequently consist of more than a preposition and its complement. First, PPs may

be introduced by a locative or temporal demonstrative drawn from the same paradigm as

the forms used as determiners with nouns. Second, PPs may include adverbial modifiers.

The demonstratives that are used to introduce locative PPs are yùt ‘here’, nìt

‘there’, and yèt ‘there (distant)’. These locative forms, which also occur independently,

are homophonous with the demonstratives ‘this’, ‘that’, and ‘that (distant)’ that are used

with singular inanimate nouns. Compare yùt ’písun ‘this medicine’, nìt màn ‘that money’,

yèt ahtulhawékon ‘that rag over there’. Temporal PPs may be introduced by yùt ‘now’, nìt

‘then’, or nekè ~ nekèt ‘then (past)’, again forms drawn from the set used with nouns.

Compare nekè kmihqotakòn ‘that knife you used to own’, with k- for second-person

possessor and accentual marking of ‘knife’ as absentative, a category indicating former

presence or (as here) former possession, reinforcing the sense suggested by the

absentative demonstrative. A few of the possibilities are illustrated in (8). Note that the

complement of the preposition ’cimacihìw ‘from (then) on’ in (8c) is a clause.

(8a) ’Sanáqot [PP yùt olŏqìw].

be.dangerous-(3) here toward

‘It’s dangerous over this way.’ (Mal., LeSourd 2007:138)

10

(8b) …nìt=oc [PP nìt ewepì òpŏsi-k] wet-toqhuwalíht-o-k.

then=FUT there up tree-LOC from-jump.on-TH-3AN

‘…it (animal) would jump on them (in.) from up in a tree.’ (Mal., LeSourd

2007:128)

(8c) [PP Nekèt=te ’ci-macihìw kisi=nuhtoqa=nomihqósi-t],

then.PAST=EMPH from-starting past=insufficient=be.born-3AN

mace=ksinuhkew-ápĭhi-t.

start=be.sick-be.man-3AN

‘From the time he was born prematurely, he has been sickly.’ (Pass., Francis

and Leavitt 2008:220)

Locative PPs may include one of the modifiers wàht ~ wáhte ‘far off’ or tètt ~

tétta ‘in this or that direction’, or a combination of these.9 Examples are given in (9).

(9a) [PP Wáhte ewepìw] nèmq=ŏte nomíy-a cihpŏlákon.

far up barely=EMPH (1)-see-DIR eagle

‘Way up above I can just barely see an eagle.’ (Pass., Francis and Leavitt

2008:136)10

(9b) Am=ŏté, kìs=al tàn qŏnì pem-íya-k

finally=EMPH already=UNCERTAIN such through along-go-3IN

uckuwi=pŏmi=wŏl-ìn-ŏm-on nìt él-komík-e-k

(3)-come=along=good-see.as-TH-N there thus-land-II-3IN

11

[PP nìt tètt olŏqì [PP nipŏn-áhki-k olŏqìw]].

there that.way toward summer-be.land-3IN near

‘In the end, all along the route he had traveled, he liked the way the land

looked there, off there toward near the southern country.’ (Mal.,

LeSourd 2007:130)

(9c) Nìt=te kisac-uhtí-hti-t, nìt=te

then=EMPH ready-MPL-PROX.PL-3AN then=EMPH

’t-olŏm-iya-wotí-nĭ-ya [PP yèt wàht tètt

3-ahead-go-MPL-N-PROX.PL there.DIST far that.way

olŏqìw Utŏqehkìk].

near Grand.Lake.Stream.LOC

‘When they were ready, they headed out there off toward Grand Lake

Stream (Me.).’ (Pass.)11

In sections 4 and 5 I demonstrate that the material we find in such examples is

organized in a hierarchical fashion that parallels the structure of noun phrases. Building a

case for this conclusion is the third principal goal of this article. Section 6 summarizes the

results of this study.

2. Prepositional phrases are constituents.

2.1. Discontinuous PPs. As we have noted, Maliseet-Passamaquoddy PPs may be

discontinuously expressed. The examples in (10) provide additional illustrations of this

12

possibility. While the preposition lamìw ‘inside, under’ immediately precedes its object

in (10a), the verb of the clause intervenes between this preposition and its object in (10b).

In the conversational example in (10c), the demonstrative yùt ‘here’ is separated from the

accompanying preposition olŏqìw by the first segment of the discontinuous subject of the

sentence, olŏmússok… nísŭwok ‘dogs… two’.

(10a) Ciqŏl-atŏk-éssu sqasúntoq [PP lamìw l-iqahs-úti-k].

tangle-string-move-(3) thread inside thus-sew-tool-LOC

‘The thread got tangled up inside the sewing machine.’ (Pass., Francis and

Leavitt 2008:107)

(10b) Wetó-ssis [PPa lamìw] íyu [PPb piyeskómŏn-ok].

worm-DIM inside be.located-(3) corn-LOC

‘There is a worm in the ear of corn.’ (Pass., Francis and Leavitt 2008:429)

(10c) [PPa Yùt] olŏmúss-ok [PPb olŏqìw] íy-w-ok nísŭw-ok.

here dog-PROX.PL near be.located-3-PROX.PL two-PROX.PL

‘There were two dogs over this way.’ (Pass.)

It will be noted that the preposition immediately precedes the verb in both examples here

in which a PP is discontinuously expressed. This situation is common, although

consultants readily accept other word orders as well.

13

2.2. Conjunction structures. Given that PPs need not be expressed by

continuous material, how can we tell that they really are syntactic units when they do

receive continuous expression? Evidence from conjunction provides the basis for one

argument that PPs are indeed constituents when they are expressed by contiguous

material. Example (11) is a case in point. Here two locative expressions, one with

tehsahqìw ‘on’ and the other with olŏqìw ‘near’, are joined together by naka ‘and’. Since

it is constituents, not simply arbitrary strings of words, that are joined together in

coordinate structures, the locative expressions at issue here must be constituents.

(11) N-kisi=pún-a-k walŏtí-hik

1-past=put-DIR-PROX.PL dish-PROX.PL

[PP [PP nìt tehsahqìw tehsaqtihíkŏn-ok]

there on shelf-LOC

naka [PP yèt wàht olŏqìw papskóte-k]].

and there.DIST far near stove-LOC

‘I put the dishes there on the shelf and over there by the stove.’ (Pass.)

Note further that each of the conjoined phrases in (11) includes a locative

demonstrative. The demonstrative is thus seen to belong to the PP constituent in each

case, along with the preposition and its complement. Moreover, the second conjunct in

(11) includes not only a demonstrative but the modifier wàht ‘far off’. Clearly, then, a

sequence of such elements may be included within a PP constituent.

14

As an aside, it should be noted that locative PPs can be conjoined with locative

expressions other than other PPs. In particular, locative PPs can be conjoined with

locative-marked nouns, which I take to be NPs, as illustrated in (12).12

(12) Nt-uloméni-m moskuw-à elinaqsí-li-t

1-husband-POSS (3)-find-DIR-(OBV.PL) be.many-OBV-3AN

apiqsehsìs [[NP lahkáp-ok] naka [PP lamìw tuhsán-ok]].

mouse-(OBV.PL) cellar-LOC and inside shed-LOC

‘My husband found a lot of mice in the cellar and inside the shed.’ (Pass.)

The reason for this is that what is required for conjunction is not identity of grammatical

category but parallelism of function. The verb ‘find’ in (12) selects a locative

complement. This complement may be expressed either as a PP or as a locative NP. Since

phrases of both types are possible complements here, a conjunction of phrases of the two

types is also a possible complement. In this respect, (12) is comparable to the English

example (13), where the verb word selects a complement expressing manner, which is

then realized by the conjunction of a manner adverb and a manner PP.

(13) The lawyer worded the letter [[AdvP carefully] and [PP with great precision]].

The fact that a PP can be conjoined with an Adverb Phrase does not show that PP and

Adverb Phrase are the same category in English. Correspondingly, the fact that a PP can

15

be conjoined with a locative NP in Maliseet-Passamaquoddy is not informative about the

grammatical status of categories of either type.13

2.3. Pied piping. A second argument for the constituency of PPs comes from

pied-piping in questions, the construction in which an entire phrase is fronted when a

question word contained within that phrase is targeted for extraction.14 Bruening

(2001:53) has expressed doubt that prepositions can be fronted along with their

complements in Maliseet-Passamaquoddy questions, but in fact pied-piping is routinely

available in question formation in the language, although it is also usually optional.

Extraction with pied piping is illustrated in (14). First, (14a) shows the fronting of

tehsahqìw kèq ‘on what’. Here, however, dislocation has taken place only within a single

clause, so it might be imagined that the preposition and its complement have been fronted

independently. This possibility is excluded in (14b), where the phrase in question has

been extracted across a clause boundary.

(14a) [PP Tehsahqìw kèq] nòt tŏké amucalù al-átŭwe-t ___?

on what that.PROX now fly around-crawl-3AN

‘On what is that fly crawling around now?’ (Pass.)

(14b) [CP [PP Tehsahqìw kèq] yúh-usk Píyel

on what tell-3/2 Peter

16

[CP nòt tŏké amucalù al-átŭwe-t ___ ]]?

that.PROX now fly around-crawl-3AN

‘On what did Peter tell you that that fly is crawling around now?’ (Pass.)

The PP in (14b) can only have been dislocated as a unit, since there is no long-distance

scrambling in Maliseet-Passamaquoddy that could license the extraction of the

preposition independently of the fronting of its complement, a point to which I return.

Example (15a) is comparable to (14b). Here qihìw tamà ‘near where’ has

undergone long-distance extraction. In (15b), on the other hand, tamà ‘where’ has been

fronted by itself, stranding qihìw ‘near’ in the embedded clause.

(15a) [CP [PP Qihìw tamà] Píyel l-itahásu [CP Súsehp wíku ___]]?

near where Peter thus-think-(3) Joseph dwell-(3)

‘Near where does Peter think that Joseph lives?’ (Pass.)

(15b) [CP [PPa Tamà] Píyel l-itahásu

where Peter thus-think-(3)

[CP Súsehp [PPb qihìw ___] wíku]]?

Joseph near dwell-(3)

‘Where does Peter think that Joseph lives near?’ (Pass.)

In the case of prepositions that take PPs as their complements, the entire PP can

be fronted under questioning, showing that it is a constituent, as illustrated in (16a).

17

Alternatively, just the complement PP can be fronted, stranding the higher preposition in

the structure, as in (16b). Examples of this type show that the complement PP is a

constituent in its own right. Finally, the NP complement of the lower preposition may be

extracted, as in (16c), leaving both prepositions stranded.

(16a) [CP [PP Olŏqìw akŭwìw tàn yùt wikŭwám-ok]

toward behind such this house-LOC

wasís-ok kt-iy-úk-uk [CP eli- nòt skitàp

child-PROX.PL 2-tell-INV-PROX.PL thus- that.AN man

-olŏk-úhse-t ___ ]]?

-toward-walk-3AN

‘Toward behind which house did the children tell you that that man

walked?’ (Pass.)

= (16b) [CP [PPa Akŭwìw tàn yùt wikŭwám-ok]

behind such this house-LOC

wasís-ok kt-iy-úk-uk [CP eli- nòt skitàp

child-PROX.PL 2-tell-INV-PROX.PL thus- that.AN man

-olŏk-úhse-t [PPb olŏqìw ___ ]]?

-toward-walk-3AN toward

= (16c) [CP [PPa Tàn yùt wikŭwám-ok]

such this house-LOC

18

wasís-ok kt-iy-úk-uk [CP eli- nòt skitàp

child-PROX.PL 2-tell-INV-PROX.PL thus that.AN man

-olŏk-úhse-t [PPb olŏqìw akŭwìw ___ ]]?

toward-walk-3AN toward behind

Preposition stranding as seen here is not particularly surprising, of course, since

prepositions and their complements are routinely separable in any case. In fact it is not

clear that ‘where’ has been fronted from a position within PP in (15b) or that ‘which

house’ has been fronted from within PP in (16c); these phrases could simply be separate

constituents in the input to fronting. But as it happens, it is also possible for a preposition

to be shifted into the matrix clause and to be separated there from its complement. This is

the situation for qihìw ‘near’ and its questioned complement tamà ‘where’ in (17).

(17) [CP [PPa Tamà] Píyel [PPb qihìw ___ ] l-itahásu

where Peter near thus-think-(3)

[CP Súsehp wíku ___ ]].

Joesph dwell-(3)

‘Where does Peter think that Joseph lives?’ (Pass.)

The occurrence of ‘near’ within the matrix clause in (17) is licensed only by the

fact that the object of this preposition has been extracted. As I have already remarked,

there is no general process of long-distance scrambling in Maliseet-Passamaquoddy that

19

would permit this preposition to occur outside the embedded clause in a structure without

the extraction. To see that this is so, consider the examples in (18).15

(18a) [CP Píyel l-itahásu [CP Máli wíku [PP qihìw Kelìsk]]].

Peter thus-think-(3) Mary dwell-(3) near Calais.LOC

‘Peter thinks that Mary lives near Calais (Me.).’ (Pass.)

(18b) [CP Píyel l-itahásu [CP Máli [PPa qihìw] wíku [PPb Kelìsk]]].

Peter thus-think-(3) Mary near dwell-(3) Calais.LOC

‘Peter thinks that Mary lives near Calais (Me.).’ (Pass.)

(18c) *[ CP Píyel [PPa qihìw] l-itahásu [CP Máli wíku [PPb Kelìsk]]].

Peter near thus-think-(3) Mary dwell-(3) Calais.LOC

In (18a), qihìw Kelìsk ‘near Calais’ is an ordinary continuously expressed PP. In

(18b), the verb wíku ‘lives (there)’ stands between the preposition qihìw and its

complement, but the two segments of the PP are still located within the same clause. This

example is grammatical. In (18c), qihìw has been stationed in front of the matrix verb,

thus outside of the clause in which it is interpreted. The result is ungrammatical. This

situation is typical: prepositions need not be adjacent to their complements, but cannot be

freely shifted away from them across clause boundaries.

I conclude, then, that the occurrence of qihìw within the matrix clause in (17)

presupposes the extraction of the object of this preposition from the complement clause

in this example. This effect suggests that the PP qihìw tamà is in some sense extracted as

20

a unit here, only to be realized in discontinuous fashion in the output of extraction. Thus,

the PP in (17) functions like a constituent in an abstract sense even though it is realized as

two independent words in surface syntax.

3. The categorial status of prepositions.

3.1. Overview of the argument. In the preceding sections I have tacitly assumed

that the locative particles that appear in the phrases under discussion are prepositions and

that these particles head the phrases in question. But are these assumptions justified?

Sherwood (1986) takes a different position. He suggests that “[l]ocative nouns head

special locative noun phrases which function only as adverbs of place. Unlike other

nouns, they may be preceded and modified by various locational and directional

particles” (p. 103). On this analysis, qihìw ‘near, next to’ stands as a modifier of

ponápskuk ‘rock (loc.)’ in the following example that he provides.

(19) On=ehta=yaq maceph-a-n

and.then=EMPH=REPORT take.away-UNSPEC/3-N

yut qihiw ponapsk-uk.

here next.to rock-LOC

‘It was then, they say, that they brought him here next to the rock.’ (Mal.,

Sherwood 1986:104, retranscribed)

21

I demonstrate here that three considerations weigh against Sherwood’s proposal

and in favor of the analysis that I have advanced, under which locative particles are

prepositions that take NP complements. First, not all “locational and directional particles”

of the kind that Sherwood analyzes as modifiers appear in construction with locative-

marked nominals. Many locative particles are used optionally or regularly with a

nonlocative NP. The choice is partly a function of the semantics of the particle, but seems

to be at least in part lexically determined. Thus, locative particles govern the case

marking of the NP that accompanies them. Government of the form of a dependent is

commonly cited as a defining property of heads (Zwicky 1985:7-8). Particles with a

locative meaning that head the phrases in which they occur and take NPs as complements

are plausibly analyzed as prepositions. The phrases they head are thus revealed to be PPs.

Second, plural locatives have special properties in Maliseet-Passamaquoddy that

show they are not simply plural counterparts of ordinary locative-marked nouns.

Correspondingly, locative particles that ordinarily appear in construction with locative

forms of singular nouns may be used with nonlocative plural nouns. In such cases, as for

locative particles that govern nonlocative singular nouns, it is clearly the particle and not

the accompanying NP that characterizes the entire phrase as a locative expression, thus

determining its distribution. The element in a phrase that characterizes the phrase as a

whole is generally taken to be the head (Zwicky 1985:2). Again, the heads of locative

phrases with NP complements are plausibly analyzed as prepositions.

Third, there are in fact structures in which a locative particle (with or without an

associated NP) stands as a modifier of a noun. But these structures are distinct from those

22

in which a locative particle takes a locative NP as its dependent. An account of the full

range of structures in which locative particles may appear must recognize uses of such

particles both as the heads of independent phrases and as the heads of modifying

expressions. We obtain a simple account of the facts in this domain if we suppose that

locative particles may head prepositional phrases, but that such phrases may in turn serve

as NP modifiers.

A further consideration that is relevant to the categorical status of locative

particles involves their morphology. The majority of these particles are derived by adding

a suffix -ìw to roots that also occur as the initial components of verbs, preverbs, or nouns.

As a reviewer points out, the same suffix appears in a number of words that are clearly to

be analyzed as adverbs, and one might argue on this basis that locative particles, too, are

adverbs. As it happens, however, not only locative particles and a variety of adverbs, but

certain quantifiers are formed with the suffix -ìw. These may be used to modify nouns

and are therefore presumably not adverbs. Thus, -ìw apparently forms words of more than

one category. The fact that locative particles and adverbs are morphologically similar

accordingly does not imply that words of these two classes are syntactically alike.

A final point to be noted concerns locative particles that are derived from bases of

the type that Bloomfield (1946:120) calls “relative roots.” These introduce a reference to

a semantic domain such as source or direction without specifying a point in this domain.

The relevant point in the domain must then be specified by a co-occurring expression. In

the case of locative particles based on relative roots, an associated noun may serve as the

23

specifying expression. Thus, the noun that accompanies the particle is seen to be an

argument of the particle, a status appropriate to a dependent.

3.2. Case government. Turning to the first point outlined above, the question of

whether locative particles always occur with locative nouns, we find that many locative

and directional particles, like Sherwood’s example qihìw ‘near’, do typically appear in

construction with locative nominals, with a special proviso for plurals, as already noted.16

Thus, only the alternative with a locative-marked noun is acceptable in (20).

(20) Súsehp wíku qihìw

Joseph dwell-(3) near

{ malsan-ikŭwám-ok / *malsan-íkŭwam }.

merchant-building-LOC merchant-building

‘Joseph lives near the store.’ (Pass.)

Yet for other particles, such as ’cìw ‘from, for, about’ and the etymologically related

form ùhc ‘from, for’, the situation is more complex. When ’cìw is used with a literal

spatial sense, the accompanying NP is typically locative in form, as shown in (21a).

When the sense is one of a nonspatial source, however, as it is in (21b), either a locative

or a nonlocative NP may be used. (The noun wapikpíhil ‘white ash wood’ in this example

is marked as obviative, indicating that its referent is secondary to that of another third

person in the current discourse context.) When the sense of ’cìw is ‘for (a reason)’, a

24

usage more typical of Maliseet than of Passamaquoddy, the accompanying NP is again

nonlocative in form, as shown in (21c).

(21a) Kse=komútŏne ’cìw nuhuwew-éya-k.

in=steal-(3) from third-NF-LOC

‘He stole home from third base.’ (Pass., Francis and Leavitt 2008:200)

(21b) Assélŏma uci=kis-iht-ú-n-ol tomhikŏn-átk-ul

Samuel (3)-from=past-make-TH-N-IN.PL axe-stick-IN.PL

’cìw { wap-íkpi-k / wap-ikpí-hil }.

from white-ash-LOC white-ash-OBV.SG

‘Samuel made axe handles of white ash.’ (Pass.)

(21c) Wolíwon ’cìw amsqocéhkan.

thanks for doll

‘Thank you for the doll.’ (Mal., Francis and Leavitt 2008:109)

Particles of a third class that includes wawikìw ‘mixed with’, shown in (22), as well as

wicìw ‘with’ and mawìw ‘with (in a group)’, regularly appear in construction with

nonlocative nominals.

(22) N-wik-aht-ŏm-ón-ol nìl pocetés-ol

1-like-eat-TH-N-IN.PL I potato-IN.PL

25

wawikìw { wíyuhs / *wiyúhs-ok }.

mixed.with meat meat-LOC

‘I like (to eat) potatoes mixed together with meat.’ (Pass.)

There are clearly semantic regularities at work in determining the distribution of

locative and nonlocative forms with different particles. In particular, NPs that actually

denote places appear in locative form. But it is not obvious why the notion of source

should (optionally) be expressed by locative case marking, while the notion of

accompaniment should not. This would appear to be lexically determined. Overall, the

form of the nominal that accompanies a locative particle is a function of the choice of the

particle, which is to say that locative particles govern the case-marking of the NPs that

appear in construction with them. As we have noted, the expression in a phrase that

governs the form of another expression within the phrase is generally considered to be the

head. Thus, locative particles head locative phrases and are appropriately analyzed as

prepositions heading PPs.

3.3. The particle characterizes the phrase. The second point to consider

involves the implications of examples where the NP that accompanies a locative particle

is plural. The crucial observation here is that the plural locative formation does not

simply stand as the plural of the singular locative. One indication of this fact is a

difference in treatment of nouns according to their classification in the Maliseet-

Passamaquoddy system of animacy gender. Many semantically inanimate nouns are

26

included in the animate class. These nouns, like inanimates, have both singular and plural

locative forms: ’tomákŏn-ok ‘pipe (an., loc.)’, ’tomakŏn-íhkuk ‘pipes (loc.)’. Semantically

animate nouns, on the other hand, do not in general have singular locative forms, but do

occur with plural locative inflection: *skitápe-k ‘man (loc.)’, skitapew-íhkuk ‘men (loc.)’.

It is a further reflection of the distinct status of plural locatives that even particles that

normally require locative marking on the complement when this is singular may take a

plural complement in nonlocative form. Thus, qihìw ‘near’ may take a plural complement

with or without locative inflection, as we see in (23).

(23) Píyel wíku nìt=te qihìw níhtol

Peter dwell-(3) there=EMPH near those.IN

{ wikŭwam-íhkuk / wikŭwám-ol }.

house-PL.LOC house-IN.PL

‘Peter lives near those houses.’ (Pass.)

It seems clear, then, that Sherwood’s analysis of particles like qihìw as modifiers solely

of locative nouns with adverbial function cannot stand. The function of the bolded phrase

in (23) is determined by the locative particle, not by the NP that follows it. Thus, the

particle must be considered its head. I conclude again that such particles are prepositions

heading PPs.

The same point can be made on the basis of cases like those illustrated in (21b)

and (21c) where a locative particle takes a nonlocative singular noun as its complement.

27

Consider (24) in this connection. The preverb-verb complex ’ci=kisihtásŭwol ‘they are

made of (it)’ requires an oblique argument indicating a source, which is expressed here

by a phrase formed with ’cìw ‘from’. (Constructions in which a verbal expression and its

complement are based on the same root are common.)

(24) Níhtol tomhikŏn-átk-ul ’ci=kisihtásŭ-w-ol

those.IN axe-stick-IN.PL from=be.made-3-IN.PL

*(’cìw) { wap-íkpi-k / wap-ikpí-hil }.

from white-ash-LOC white-ash-OBV.SG

‘Those axe-handles were made of white ash.’ (Pass.)

The NP that accompanies ’cìw in (24) need not bear locative inflection. At the same time,

’cìw cannot be omitted here, regardless of the inflection of the following noun. Thus, it is

the presence of ’cìw, not locative inflection on the following NP, that makes the bolded

phrase appropriate as an expression of source. In other words, it is the particle that

characterizes the phrase. As we have noted, the element within a phrase that serves to

characterize the phrase as a whole is ordinarily considered the head. Once again, an

analysis of the locative particle as a preposition heading a PP finds support.

3.4. Two types of structures involving locative particles. The third

consideration outlined above that favors the PP analysis is the fact that we actually find

two types of structures involving locative particles: structures in which such particles

28

head independent phrases and structures in which they (or phrases that they head) do

indeed serve as modifiers of NPs, including locative-marked NPs. Thus, phrases with the

structure that Sherwood envisions occur, but they are not the phrases that he sought to

analyze.

Consider first in this connection the examples in (25). These illustrate

independent phrases headed by ksokayìw ~ qsokayìw ‘across’. The particle is followed by

a locative NP in (25a). The conjunction structure in this example guarantees that the

particle and the NP that accompanies it form a constituent. In (25b) the particle occurs

without a following NP. Under the analysis that I have proposed, ksokayìw is a transitive

preposition in (25a) and qsokayìw is an intransitive preposition in (25b). For Sherwood,

of course, the particle in (25a) would be analyzed as a modifier of the following NP,

while that in (25b) would be taken to be an adverb. (The form ĭyá that appears in the

latter example is an inflected pronominal that is used when a speaker pauses momentarily

in planning an utterance. It bears the grammatical features of an anticipated nominal.)

(25a) Máli wíku [PP [PP ksokayìw áwti-k] naka

Mary dwell-(3) across road-LOC and

[PP qihìw malsan-ikŭwám-ok]].

near merchant-building-LOC

‘Mary lives across the road and near the store.’ (Pass.)

29

(25b) Missél-is ĭyá, nekòm=kahk [PP qsokayìw] wíku.

Mitchell-DIM HES.PRO.PROX.SG he=EMPH across dwell-(3)

‘Young Mitchell, him, he lived across the way.’ (Pass., Francis and Leavitt

2008:281)

Next consider the two examples in (26). Both sentences include conjoined NPs:

the second conjunct must be an NP as well as the first, since the two function together as

a subject. Thus, we are dealing in both sentences with a structure in which the particle

ksokayìw ‘across’ stands as a modifier of the noun wíkŭwam ‘house’. The modifying

particle may either precede or follow the noun.

(26a) [NP [NP Imiyew-íkŭwam] naka [NP nìt [PP ksokayìw]

pray-building and that.IN across

wíkŭwam]] cuwi=lilŏmonhásŭ-w-ol.

house should=be.painted-3-IN.PL

‘The church and that house across (from it) need to be painted.’ (Pass.)

(26b) [NP [NP Imiyew-íkŭwam] naka [NP nìt wíkŭwam

pray-building and that.IN house

[PP ksokayìw]] cuwi=lilŏmonhásŭ-w-ol.

across should=be.painted-3-IN.PL

‘The church and that house across (from it) need to be painted.’ (Pass.)

30

The examples in (27) have the same structure as those in (26), except that now

ksokayìw ‘across’ takes áwti-k ‘road (loc.)’ as its complement. Here, then, the modifying

expression is complex. Again, the modifier may precede or follow the modified noun

wíkŭwam ‘house’.

(27a) [NP [NP Imiyew-íkŭwam] naka [NP nìt

pray-building and that.IN

[PP ksokayìw áwti-k] wíkŭwam]] cuwi=lilŏmonhásŭ-w-ol.

across road-LOC house should=be.painted-3-IN.PL

‘The church and that house across the road need to be painted.’ (Pass.)

(27b) [NP [NP Imiyew-íkŭwam] naka [NP nìt wíkŭwam

pray-building and that.IN house

[PP ksokayìw áwti-k]] cuwi=lilŏmonhásŭ-w-ol.

across road-LOC should=be.painted-3-IN.PL

‘The church and that house across the road need to be painted.’ (Pass.)

In both (26) and (27) we find structures analogous to those proposed by

Sherwood, with a particle or a phrase headed by a particle serving as a modifier of a

noun. But the meanings here are very different from those of the examples that Sherwood

was seeking to analyze, which are of the type represented by (25a). In (25a) we have

‘across the road’, with ‘road’ playing the role of a semantic argument of ‘across’. In (26)

we have ‘the house across (from something)’, where ‘across’ functions as an adjunct to

31

‘house’. This difference in interpretation finds a natural explanation under the proposal

advanced here, in which ‘across’ is a transitive preposition in (25a) taking ‘road’ as its

object, while ‘across’ is an intransitive preposition in the examples in (26), serving as a

modifier. The argument of ‘across’ is left implicit in (26). In (27) this preposition is

supplied with an explicit argument within the modifying phrase that it heads.

A final point worth noting is that a PP may serve as a modifier of a locative-

marked noun, as shown in (28). Again, the modifying expression may either precede or

follow the head of the NP.

(28a) Skinúhsis ’kisi=pún-ŏm-on mitsùt

boy (3)-past=put-TH-N fork

[NP tuwihpúti-k [PP qihìw possĭyantésk-ik]].

table-LOC near window-LOC

‘The boy put the fork on the table by the window.’ (Pass.)

(28b) Skinúhsis ’kisi=pún-ŏm-on mitsùt

boy (3)-past=put-TH-N fork

[NP [PP qihìw possĭyantésk-ik] tuwihpúti-k].

near window-LOC table-LOC

‘The boy put the fork on the table by the window.’ (Pass.)

32

Once again we see that the type of modification structure that Sherwood postulates for

phrases with locative particles does occur, but is distinct from the structure of phrases in

which locative particles take NPs as arguments.

3.5. A morphological issue. The final issue that we need to consider in deciding

what grammatical category locative particles belong to, and thus determining the

category of the phrases that they head, involves the morphology of the particles. There is

in fact some diversity in the form of particles that take nominal complements. Asìt

‘behind, in back’, shown in (1a), is historically related to the root asite- seen in ’t-asité-

m-a-l ‘he answers him’ (with -m- ‘by mouth or speech’, plus inflections). Páhka-k

‘behind, in back’ is the locative form of the stem that occurs in the (otherwise)

obligatorily possessed noun ’páhka-m ‘his back’ (where -m is a possessive suffix). Lam-

ikŭwàm ‘inside (a building)’ is formed on an old Algonquian pattern, well attested in

Maliseet-Passamaquoddy but no longer productive, by which a root with a locative or

directional sense is combined with a concrete element to form a particle (Bloomfield

1946:117). The last two items are illustrated in (29), where their occurrence in a

coordinate structure makes it clear that each particle forms a constituent with an

associated noun.

(29) Skinuhsís-ok ’kisi=pun-ŏm-ón-ĭya-l ’kan-éya-l qotŏpútĭ-yil

boy-PROX.PL (3)-past=put-TH-N-PROX.PL-IN.PL old-NF-IN.PL chair-IN.PL

33

[PP [PP lam-ikŭwàm imiyew-ikŭwám-ok] naka

inside-building pray-building-LOC and

[PP páhka-k tuhsán-ok]]

back-LOC shed-LOC

‘The boys put the old chairs inside the church and behind the shed.’

(Pass.)

The largest number of locative particles, however, are derived by adding the suffix -ìw to

a root that also occurs as the initial component of a verb stem, a preverb, or a noun stem.

For example, tehsahq-ìw ‘on’ is based on a root tehsahq- that also appears in the stem of

the verb tehsahq-ŏlúhke ‘he works on top of a table, desk, etc.’ (with -ŏluhke- ‘work’), in

the preverb seen in tehsahqi=kúwh-at ‘when he fells a tree on it’ (with kuwh- ‘fell a tree’),

and in the noun tehsahq-íkan ‘roof’ (with -ikan ‘building’).

This suffix -ìw also forms a variety of particles that do not take nominal

complements and whose meanings make them unlikely candidates for analysis as

prepositions: ahacìw ‘increasingly’, askomìw ‘forever’, mecimìw ‘always (in the past)’,

nisukŏnìw ‘for two days’, sŏlahkìw ‘unexpectedly, suddenly’, wolìw ‘right away’, and

many others. These particles are presumably to be analyzed as adverbs. Does the fact that

many locative particles are derived with the same suffix as a number of adverbs support

an analysis of locative particles themselves as adverbs, rather than as prepositions?17

The assumption that would underlie any argument along these lines is that -ìw

forms words of only a single grammatical category. But there is reason to doubt this. In

34

particular, the quantifiers psìw ‘all’ and toqìw ‘both’ include the same suffix as the other

items we have considered.18 The former is based on the root moss- ~ ps- ‘much, many’

seen in k-moss-íht-u-n (2-much-TI-TH-N) ‘you (sg.) have plenty of it’ and ps-iht-uw-àn

(much-TI-TH-1SG-(SUBJ)) ‘if I had plenty of it’. The latter quantifier is derived from toq-

‘two together’, found for example in toq-ŏpú-w-ok (two-be.located-3-PROX.PL) ‘they

(two) are joined together, branch out from a common source’. But these quantifiers may

occur as modifiers of nouns, as shown for in toqìw in (30), where the conjunction

structure bears witness to the fact that the quantifier forms a constituent with the noun

with which it is construed. Thus, they are not appropriately analyzed as adverbs.

(30) [NP [NP Toqìw pilsqehsís-ok] naka [NP toqìw skinuhsís-ok]]

both girl-PROX.PL and both boy-PROX.PL

tol-otem-uhtú-w-ok.

ongoing-cry-MPL-3-PROX.PL

‘Both boys and both girls are crying.’ (Pass.)

Similarly, pecìw ‘even’, a derivative of pet- ‘approach’, may function as a noun modifier.

(Compare pét-ŏlan ‘rain approaches’, with -ŏlan- ‘rain’.) This is shown by (31), where

the particle is construed with a noun in a left dislocation structure, showing that it forms a

constituent with it. (This noun is preceded here by the inanimate plural form of the

hesitation pronoun that we encountered in (25b).)

35

(31) [NP Pecìw ĭhíl, wehkew-ákŏn-ol], nìt=ehta

Even HES.PRO.IN.PL use-NOM-IN.PL then=EMPH

wetŏn-óm-ek malihkĭye-hsís-ok.

get.from-TH-1PL barrel-DIM-LOC

‘Even those—tools, we (inc.) got them in a small barrel then.’ (Pass.,

Francis and Leavitt 2008:250)

Here again we do not seem to be dealing with an adverb. It would appear, then, that -ìw

forms words with diverse syntactic properties. I conclude that the fact that many locative

particles are derived with this suffix is not a bar to analyzing such particles as

prepositions.

3.6. Particles based on relative roots. Consider, finally, the fact that certain

locative particle are based on relative roots, which require a co-occurring expression to

specify a point in the semantic domain to which they refer. Two such particles are ’cìw

‘from, about, for’ and olŏqìw ‘toward, near’; compare examples in (4), (6), and (21).

These are based on the relative roots ’t- and olŏq-, which appear as initial components of

verb stems in the examples in (32).19 The roots and the expressions that serve to specify

them are given in bold. Note that the specifying phrase in (32b) includes a locative

particle based on the same root as seen in the verb in this example.

36

(32a) Somsòq ’t-apék-ŏpu nòt olŏnahq-áp-is mehqéyi-t.

upstairs from-be.located-(3) that.AN metal-string-DIM be.red-3AN

‘That red wire comes from upstairs.’ (Pass., Francis and Leavitt 2008:537)

(32b) ’T-olŏq-áph-a-l olŏqiw kuspém-ok.

3-toward-track-DIR-OBV.SG toward lake-LOC

‘He tracked him toward the lake.’ (Pass., Francis and Leavitt 2008:379)

For a locative particle based on a relative root, there are a number of ways to

satisfy the requirement for a specifying expression. A phrase-initial demonstrative may

be used deictically with this effect, as shown for olŏqìw ‘toward, near’ in (33a). An

adverbial modifier may fulfill the requirement, as seen in (33b). A locative nominal may

also serve to specify the semantic import of the relative root, as in (33c).

(33a) Nìt=te [PP yéta olŏqì] ol-ŭwíke.

then=EMPH there.DIST toward thus-point-(3)

‘Then he pointed off there in the distance.’20 (Mal.)

(33b) [PP Wàht olŏqìw] Ékŏnis etŏl-okehkím-a-t

far toward Agnes onging-teach-DIR-3AN

Elíkk-ol el-ká-li-t.

Alex-OBV.SG thus-dance-OBV-3AN

‘Over there Agnes is teaching Alex how to dance.’ (Pass., Francis and

Leavitt 2008:133)

37

(33c) N-kisi=pún-a nòt puhtày [PP olŏqìw papskóte-k].

1-past=put-DIR that.AN bottle near stove-LOC

‘I put the bottle over by the stove.’ (Pass.)

Each of these specifying expressions is an argument of the particle, satisfying the

semantic requirement induced by the relative root on which it is based. In particular, the

nominal that accompanies the locative particle in a sentence like (33c) is its argument.

This conclusion is consistent with the analysis of locative particles proposed here, which

takes these expressions to be prepositions taking NP complements. It is not consistent

with Sherwood’s analysis of locative particles as adverbial modifiers.

3.7. Locative particles are prepositions. I conclude that several lines of

reasoning support the analysis of locative particles as prepositions heading prepositional

phrases. Their characteristically locative and directional meanings are typical of

prepositions. They are shown to be the heads of the phrases in which they occur by the

fact that they govern the case of an associated nominal. Moreover, they are responsible

for the locative character of the phrases in which they occur, since the associated nominal

need not be a locative form. Structures in which locative particles function as modifiers

do in fact occur, but are distinct from phrases headed by such particles. Finally, locative

particles based on relative roots clearly take NPs as their complements.

38

4. The internal structure of prepositional phrases.

4.1. The basic structure. As we noted in section 1, locative PPs may be

introduced by one of the locative demonstratives yùt ‘here’, nìt ‘there’, or yèt ‘there

(distant)’.21 The preposition itself, together with its complement if it has one, forms a

constituent separate from this demonstrative. Evidence for this assertion comes from

conjunction.

Consider (34a) in this connection. If the preposition and its complement form a

unit together, as indicated by the bracketing given here, then it should be possible to

conjoin two such units so that they share a single demonstrative. And indeed this is

possible, as we see in (34b). Note that the possibility of including toqí=te ‘both’ in this

example guarantees that yùt is construed with both conjuncts here, not just the first. (I

assume that the quantifier is adjoined here to P´.)

(34a) Eci=wolináqah-k [PP yùt [P´ qihìw qospem-sís-ok]].

very=be.beautiful-3IN here near lake-DIM-LOC

‘It’s very beautiful here by the lake.’ (Pass.)

(34b) Eci=wolináqah-k [PP yùt (toqí=te) [P´ [P´ qihìw qospem-sís-ok]

very=be.beautiful-3IN here both=EMPH near lake-DIM-LOC

naka [P´ qihìw kcíhk-uk]]].

and near forest-LOC

‘It’s very beautiful here (both) by the lake and by the woods.’ (Pass.)

39

I conclude that the facts of conjunction indicate that the structure of the PP in

(34a) is as shown in (35).

(35) Structure of the PP yùt qihìw qospemsísok ‘here by the lake’.

PP Det P´ | yùt P NP here | qihìw qospem-sís-ok near lake-DIM-LOC

It will be seen that I have represented the demonstrative in (35) as occupying a specifier

position within PP and that I have labeled the constituent consisting of the preposition

and its complement as P´. These decisions require comment.

4.2. Initial demonstratives. The demonstratives that introduce PPs in Maliseet-

Passamaquoddy are appropriately regarded as determiners, since they serve to restrict the

denotation of PPs in much the same way as nominal demonstratives serve to restrict the

reference of NPs. PP determiners share another property with NP determiners as well:

they are restricted to initial position in the phrases of which they form a part.

To see how the distribution of demonstratives in PPs parallels the distribution of

demonstratives in NPs, consider first the PP examples in (36). In (36a), yùt ‘here’ is

initial within PP, and the example is grammatical. In (36b), the same demonstrative

appears in non-initial position, and the example is ungrammatical.

40

(36a) Skinuhsís-ok ’kisi=pun-ŏm-ónĭ-ya tuwihpùt

boy-PROX.PL (3)-past=put-TH-N-PROX.PL table

[PP yùt qihìw possĭyantésk-ik].

here near window-LOC

‘The boys put the table here by the window.’ (Pass.)

(36b) *Skinuhsís-ok ’kisi=pun-ŏm-ónĭ-ya tuwihpùt

boy-PROX.PL (3)-past=put-TH-N-PROX.PL table

[PP qihìw possĭyantésk-ik yùt].

near window-LOC here

‘The boys put the table here by the window.’ (Pass.)

The examples in (37) show that the same situation is found in NP. In (37a) the

demonstrative nòt ‘that (an.)’ precedes the noun that it modifies, and the result is

grammatical. Reversing the order of demonstrative and noun as in (37b) yields an

ungrammatical result.

(37a) Sepáwŏnu [NP nòt skitàp] mace-he.

Tomorrow that.AN man start-go-(3)

‘That man is leaving tomorrow.’ (Pass.)

(37b) *Sepáwŏnu [NP skitàp nòt] mace-he.

Tomorrow man that.AN start-go-(3)

‘That man is leaving tomorrow.’ (Pass.)

41

The fact that demonstratives are restricted to initial position in locative

expressions rules out a possible alternative to structures like (35) that a reviewer has

suggested, one in which the initial demonstrative in such phrases is analyzed as the head

of the expression as a whole, while the constituent that I have called a P´ is analyzed

instead as a PP modifier of this demonstrative. Since locative demonstratives can stand

on their own as locative expressions, it is plausible enough that they might be able to

head phrases. Moreover, locative expressions can be modified by PPs, as we observed in

3.4. As we also observed there, however, such PP modifiers can either precede or follow

the expression that they modify; compare examples (28a) and (28b). By contrast, the P´

(or PP) that is associated with a demonstrative in a locative phrase cannot follow this

demonstrative, as we have just seen. Thus, the proposed modification structure can be

ruled out. When we add to this observation the parallel distribution of demonstratives in

NPs and PPs, the decision to treat demonstratives as specifiers in phrases of both types

appears to be fully justified.

4.3. Modifiers within PP. Consider next how the modifiers wàht ‘far off’ and tètt

‘in that direction’ fit into the structure of PPs. These elements always follow an initial

locative demonstrative, if one occurs, as illustrated in (38). They precede the preposition

and its object, as shown in (39a), and are not permitted to follow this sequence; witness

(39b). Two modifiers may occur together, however, and in either order, as we see in

(39c).

42

(38) N-kisi=pún-a-k tuwossŏmútĭ-yik

1-past=put-DIR-PROX.PL cup-PROX.PL

{ yèt wàht / *wàht yèt } olŏqìw walŏtew-íhkuk.

there.DIST far far there.DIST near dish-PL.LOC

‘I put the cups over there by the dishes.’ (Pass.)

(39) Nìt=te kisac-uhtí-hti-t,

then=EMPH ready-MPL-PROX.PL-3AN

nìt=te ’t-olŏm-iya-wŏtí-nĭ-ya…

then=EMPH (3)-ahead-go-MPL-N-PROX.PL

‘When they were ready, then they headed…’

a. …{ wàht / tètt } olŏqìw Utŏqehkìk.

far that.way toward G.L.S.LOC

‘…out / off toward Grand Lake Stream (Me.),’ (Pass.)

b. *… olŏqìw Utŏqehkìk { wàht / tètt }

toward G.L.S.LOC far that.way

c. … { wàht tètt / tètt wàht } olŏqìw Utŏqehkìk.

far that.way that.way far toward G.L.S.LOC

‘…off out toward Grand Lake Stream (Me.).’ (Pass.)

This distribution suggests that the modifiers are adjoined to P´, the constituent

consisting of the preposition and its complement. It will follow that they cannot precede

the initial determiner in such phrases, since this determiner is in specifier position, which

43

precedes all elements within P´. Since adjuncts are typically added to a constituent

without constraints on their relative order, the free order of wàht and tètt is expected.22 It

is not uncommon for particular adjoined elements to be restricted to preceding or

following the head that they modify.23 Both wàht and tètt occur only as pre-head

modifiers.

Once again we can test this proposal by considering conjunction structures. First,

we want to see whether the modifier forms a constituent with the preposition and its

complement to the exclusion of the demonstrative. That this is the case may be seen from

(40).

(40) Nísŭw-ok mihkŭwí-hik olŏmi=spiq-atŭwí-hik

two-PROX.PL squirrel-PROX.PL away=up-climb-(3)-PROX.PL

[PP yèt toqí=te [P´ wàht [P´ tehsahqìw tuhsán-ok]]

there.DIST both=EMPH far on shed-LOC

naka [P´ tètt [P´ spiqìw kci=ópŏsi-k]]].

and that.way up big=tree-LOC

‘Two squirrels climbed up there both out onto the shed and off up a big

tree.’ (Pass.)

Of course if wàht and tètt are truly adjuncts to P´, then we also expect that a single

occurrence of one of these modifiers may be shared by conjoined expressions of this

type. That this prediction is borne out in the case of wàht is shown in (41), where this

44

modifier is construed with the conjunction of ‘on top of the stove’ and ‘near the

refrigerator’.

(41) Kceyawí-w-ok eníqs-ok al-atŭw-ahtí-c-ik

be.many-3-PROX.PL ant-PROX.PL around-crawl-MPL-3AN-PROX.PL

[PP yèt [P´ wàht (toqí=te) [P´ tehsahqìw papskóte-k]

there.DIST far both=EMPH on stove-LOC

naka [P´ qihìw kolŏcomut-íkŏn-ok]]].

and near freeze-NOM-LOC

‘A lot of ants are crawling around over there (both) on the stove and near

the refrigerator.’ (Pass.)

This evidence suggests that the structure of the grammatical version of the PP in (38) is

as shown in (42).

(42) Structure of the PP yèt wàht olŏqìw walŏtewíhkuk ‘over there by the dishes’. PP Det P´ | yèt Adv P´ there.DIST | wàht P NP far | olŏqìw walŏtew-íhkuk near dish-PL.LOC

45

Note that under this proposal a modifier like wàht will not form a constituent with

the preposition that follows it when the latter takes a complement. It is worth pausing for

a moment to consider the possible implications of this fact for sentences in which PPs are

discontinuously expressed. Compare the examples in (43) in this connection. The PP that

is expressed by contiguous material in (43a) is represented by two separate segments in

(43b).

(43a) Píyel wíku [PP wàht olŏqìw Utŏqehkìk].

Peter dwell-(3) far near Grand.Lake.Stream.LOC

‘Peter lives out near Grand Lake Stream (Me.).’ (Pass.)

(43b) Píyel [PPa wàht olŏqìw] wíku [PPb Utŏqehkìk].

Peter far near dwell-(3) Grand.Lake.Stream.LOC

‘Peter lives out near Grand Lake Stream (Me.).’ (Pass.)

The fact that wàht olŏqìw is treated like a unit in (43b) might seem to suggest that

this material should be analyzed as a constituent in (43a), against the proposal

represented by (42). But in fact (43b) is misleading in this respect. It is also possible to

include an initial demonstrative nìt ‘there’ in the discontinuous PP in (43b), as shown in

(44). But this demonstrative, as we have seen, is in specifier position within PP. Thus, the

first segment of the discontinuous PP in (44) has a complex internal structure,

presumably as shown there. The complement of olŏqìw must have been extracted from

within this structure, rather than being left behind when some unitary constituent was

46

shifted away from it. It is reasonable to assume that the analysis of (43b) is parallel in

relevant respects.

(44) Píyel [PPa nìt [P´ wàht [P´ olŏqì ___ ]]] wíku

Peter there far near dwell-(3)

[PPb Utŏqehkìk].

Grand.Lake.Stream.LOC

‘Peter lives out there near Grand Lake Stream (Me.).’ (Pass.)

The relationship between the two segments of the PPs in (43)-(44) would appear

to indicate that the second segment in each of these examples has been extracted from

within the first and shifted to the right. We need not suppose that actual rightward

movement is involved in the derivation of such examples, however. Many contemporary

syntactic frameworks, including Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG),

assume that the constituents of clauses are basically unordered, with order imposed by

principles of linearization (Donohue and Sag 1999).24 In HPSG, discontinuous

constituents are analyzed by applying the mechanism of “liberation,” an operation on

phrase structure that licenses a phrase to appear among the sisters of a constituent which

would otherwise contain it. Kathol and Rhodes (2000) have proposed that liberation may

provide an appropriate way to analyze discontinuous NPs in the Algonquian language

Ojibwe. Suppose, then, that a subconstituent of a PP in Maliseet-Passamaquoddy may be

liberated from that PP and appear among the sisters of the PP, and further suppose that

47

the order of these sisters is imposed by principles of linearization. Then we can achieve

the effects of extraction and movement without actually applying operations of either of

these formal types. It remains to be seen, of course, whether all of the issues that arise in

the analysis of discontinuous PPs can be handled by an account along these lines.

4.4. Implications. I conclude that PPs in Maliseet-Passamaquoddy have a

hierarchically organized internal structure of the kind that is familiar from X-bar theory

(Chomsky 1970). This is a significant result, since Maliseet-Passamaquoddy is a classic

“non-configurational” language (Hale 1983), in the sense that it has highly flexible word

order, makes extensive use of null anaphora, and permits several types of discontinuous

constituents. The existence of hierarchically organized phrase structure in such

languages, including in particular languages of the Algonquian family, has been a matter

of controversy. Kathol and Rhodes (2000) have argued that phrases in Ojibwe have little

internal structure, and Dahlstrom (1995) has suggested that phrase structure is largely flat

in Algonquian languages in general (although see LeSourd 2004, 2011 for discussion of

these issues).

5. Parallels with the structure of noun phrases. The structure I have suggested

for PPs in Maliseet-Passamaquoddy parallels the structure of noun phrases in the

language. This becomes evident when we consider NPs that include one of the argument-

taking nouns tol-èy or ’c-èy, both ‘someone or something from (there)’. These are based

on the relative roots tol-, introducing reference to a location, and ’t- (palatalized here to

48

’c-), introducing reference to a source. (Both nouns are formed with the suffix -èy

‘pertaining to X’.) These nouns take locative complements that spell out where ‘there’ is.

The complement may take the form of a locative noun or a prepositional phrase, and may

precede or follow the head, as we see in (45).

(45a) [NP Wòt [N´ tol-èy Kelìsk]] mecimí=te mikáhke.

this.PROX location-NF Calais.LOC always=EMPH fight-(3)

‘This person from Calais (Me.) is always fighting.’ (Pass.)

(45b) Tamà=al nìt li=kis-akùtŭ-w-ok

somewhere=UNCERTAIN there thus=past-be.related-3-PROX.PL

qihìw Mulíyan, yùkt skicinúwok Múhaks

near Montreal these.PROX Indian-PROX.PL Mohawks

naka [NP [PP yùt olŏqì] tol-éya-k].

and here near location-NF-PROX.PL

‘They formed an alliance somewhere there near Montreal, these

Mohawk Indians and the people from over this way.’ (Mal.,

LeSourd 2007:80)

The head noun and its complement form an N´ constituent to the exclusion of any

preceding demonstrative. This can be demonstrated once again by conjunction. In (46),

for example, the demonstrative níktok ‘those’ is construed with both conjuncts indicated

by the bracketing. (Maliseet-Passamaquoddy, unlike English, permits a plural

49

demonstrative to be employed with a conjunction of singular nominals.) I conclude that

the tree for the NP in (45a) is as shown in (47). The parallel with the structure shown for

the PP ‘here by the lake’ in (35) is evident.

(46) [NP Níktok [N´ Kelìsk tol-èy] naka [N´ Wehqapiqèk ’c-èy]]

those.PROX Calais.LOC location-NF and Perry.LOC from-NF

mecimí=te mikahkam-tú-w-ok.

always=EMPH fight-RECIP-3-PROX.PL

‘That person from Calais (Me.) and that person from Perry (Me.) are always

fighting each other.’ (Pass.)

(47) Structure of the NP wòt tolèy Kelìsk ‘this person from Calais (Me.)’.

NP Det N´ | wòt N NP this.PROX | tol-èy Kelìsk location-NF Calais.LOC

NPs may also include modifiers at the N´ level. In (48), for example, kŏtók ‘other’

is a modifier of the N´ Motahkŏmikùk ’cèy ‘person from Peter Dana Point (Me.)’. We can

tell that this must be the structure by comparing (48) with (49), where kótŏkik ‘others’ is

construed with a conjunction of structures, each of which consists of a noun and its

complement. Thus, the tree for the NP in (48) is that shown in (50).

50

(48) [NP Wòt [N´ kŏtók [N´ Motahkŏmikùk ’c-èy]]]

this.PROX other.PROX Peter.Dana.Point.LOC from-NF

mecimí=te páhpŭwe.

always=EMPH joke-(3)

‘This other person from Peter Dana Point (Me.) is always joking.’ (Pass.)

(49) [NP Yúktok [N´ kótŏk-ik [N´ Sipayìk tol-éya-k]

these.PROX other-PROX.PL Pl.Pt.LOC location-NF-PROX.PL

naka [N´ Motahkŏmikùk ’c-éya-k]]]

and Peter.Dana.Point.LOC from-NF-PROX.PL

mecimí=te wicuhkem-t-ultú-w-ok.

always=EMPH help-RECIP-MPL-3-PROX.PL

‘These other people from Pleasant Point and people from Peter Dana Point

always help one another.’ (Pass.)

(50) Structure of the NP wòt kŏtók Motahkŏmikùk ’cèy ‘this other person from

Peter Dana Point (Me.)’.

NP Det N´ | wòt NP N´ this.PROX kŏtók other.PROX NP N | ’c-èy Motahkŏmikùk from-NF Peter.Dana.Point.LOC

51

There is a point-by-point match between the structure of the NP wòt kŏtók

Motahkŏmikùk ’cèy ‘this other person from Peter Dana Point’ in (50) and that of the PP

yèt wàht olŏqìw walŏtewíhkuk ‘over there by the dishes’ in (42). The only difference is

the relative order of the head of each construction and its complement: the head in the NP

here follows the complement, while the head in the PP precedes. As we have noted,

however, either order of head and complement is possible in phrases of either type, so no

fundamental difference is involved. NPs and PPs are entirely parallel in structure in

Maliseet-Passamaquoddy.25

6. Conclusions. I hope to have established three main points in this article. The

first is that prepositional phrases in Maliseet-Passamaquoddy behave as constituents

when they have occasion to do so, despite the fact that they are freely and frequently

discontinuously expressed. The evidence I have presented for this conclusion comes from

conjunction structures and from pied-piping in questions.

My second point is that locative prepositional phrases are truly worthy of this

name: they are headed by the locative particles that characterize them, and the NPs (or

PPs) that accompany these particles are their complements. My evidence here is that a

locative particle governs the form of an associated (singular) NP, determining whether or

not it is in the locative case. Moreover, cases where the accompanying NP is not locative

make it clear that it is the particle that characterizes the phrase as a whole. I have also

demonstrated that structures in which a locative particle (that is, a preposition) heads a

52

phrase must be distinguished from other structures in which such a particle actually does

function as a nominal modifier.

Third, I have presented evidence, largely from conjunction, for a hierarchically

organized model of the internal structure of the prepositional phrase that parallels the

structure of NPs and conforms to the predictions of X-bar theory. This is a significant

result, since Algonquian languages have been suspected of lacking hierarchical syntactic

structure. The conclusions reached here present a challenge to such views.

53

REFERENCES

BLOOMFIELD, LEONARD. 1946. Algonquian. In Linguistic structures of Native America,

ed. by Cornelius Osgood, 85-129. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 6.

New York.

——. 1962. The Menomini language. New Haven: Yale University Press.

BRUENING, BENJAMIN. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax

of Passamaquoddy. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

CHOMSKY, NOAM. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English

transformational grammar, ed. by Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum,

184-221. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn.

CULICOVER, PETER W., AND RAY JACKENDOFF. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

DAHLSTROM, AMY. 1987. Discontinuous constituents in Fox. In Native American

languages and grammatical typology, ed. by Paul D. Kroeber and Robert E.

Moore, 53-73. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

——. 1995. Topic, focus, and other word order problems in Algonquian. Winnipeg:

Voices of Rupert’s Land.

DONOHUE, CATHRYN, AND IVAN A. SAG. 1999. Domains in Warlpiri. Paper presented at

the Sixth International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar,

Edinburgh, August 4-6. (http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~gpenn/csc2517/donohue-

sag99.pdf)

54

EMONDS, JOSEPH. 1972. Evidence that Indirect Object Movement is a structure-

preserving rule. Foundations of Language 8:546-561.

——. 1985. A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht: Foris.

FOX, DANNY, AND DAVID PESETSKY. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure.

Theoretical Linguistics 31:1-46.

FRANCIS, DAVID A., AND ROBERT M. LEAVITT. 2008. Peskotomuhkati wolastoqewi

latuwewakon / Passamaquoddy-Maliseet dictionary. Orono, Me.: University of

Maine Press.

HALE, KEN. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural

Language and Linguistic Theory 1:5-47.

JACKENDOFF, RAY. 1973. The base rules for prepositional phrases. In A festschrift for

Morris Halle, ed. by Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 345-356. New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

KATHOL, ANDREAS, AND RICHARD A. RHODES. 2000. Constituency and linearization of

Ojibwe nominals. In Proceedings of WSCLA 4: The Workshop on Structure and

Constituency in Languages of the Americas, ed. by Marion Caldecott, Suzanne

Gessner and Eun-Sook Kim, 75-91. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

LESOURD, PHILIP S. 2004. The internal structure of the noun phrase in Maliseet-

Passamaquoddy. In Papers of the Thirty-Fifth Algonquian Conference, ed. by

H.C. Wolfart, 239-263. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba.

——. 2007. Tales from Maliseet country: The Maliseet texts of Karl V. Teeter. Linclon,

Neb.: University of Nebraska Press.

55

——. 2011. Enclitic particles in Western Abenaki: The syntax of second position.

Anthropological Linguistics 53:91-131.

MITCHELL, LEWIS. 1976. Mikcic / Turtle. Indian Township, Me.: Wabnaki Bilingual

Education Program.

OXFORD, WILL. 2008. A grammatical study of Innu-aimun particles. Algonquian and

Iroquoian Linguistics Memoir 20. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba.

——. 2011. The syntax of Innu-aimun locatives. In University of British Columbia

Working Papers in Linguistics 31: The Proceedings of WSCLA 16, 135-150.

Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

(http://www.linguistics.ubc.ca/wscla/16.)

POLLARD, CARL, AND IVAN A. SAG. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

RADFORD, ANDREW. 1988. Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

SAG, IVAN A. 2003. Coordination and underspecification. In The proceedings of the

Ninth International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, ed.

by Jong-Bok Kim and Stephen Wechsler, 267-291. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI

Publications.

——. 2010. English filler-gap constructions. Language 86:486-545.

SHERWOOD, DAVID FAIRCHILD. 1986. Maliseet-Passamaquoddy verb morphology.

Canadian Ethnology Service Paper no. 105. Ottawa: National Museums of

Canada.

56

SVENONIUS, PETER. 2006. The emergence of axial parts. Nordlyd: Tromsø University

Working Papers on Language and Linguistics 33:49-77. Tromsø, Norway: Center

for Advanced Study in Theoretical Linguistics.

(http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/nordlyd/)

——. 2010. Spatial P in English. In Mapping spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic

structures, vol. 6, ed. by Guglielmo Cinque and Luigi Rizzi, 127-160. New York:

Oxford.

ZWICKY, ARNOLD M. 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21:1-29.

57

NOTES

1 I owe special thanks to Estelle Neptune and Wayne Newell, my principal

Passamaquoddy consultants for the work reported here. I am also grateful to Farrell

Ackerman and Paul Kroeber for helpful discussion and to the audience at WAIL 15, held

at UC, Santa Barbara, in April 2012, for their comments on a talk based on an early

version of this article. I am also grateful for comments from two IJAL reviewers and an

associate editor that have helped me to sharpen my thinking and to improve my

exposition. Naturally the usual disclaimers apply.

2 Bloomfield (1962:470-471) takes note of prepositional phrases in Menominee

(ISO code mez), but does not analyze them as such, taking them instead to involve

adverbial expressions (a particle and the locative form of a noun) standing in a relation he

terms “weak concord.”

3 It should be noted that the present work employs a quite different analytical

framework from that within which Oxford’s analysis is stated. Drawing on the work of

Svenonius (2006, 2010), Oxford takes a cartographic approach to the structure of

prepositional phrases, which involves postulating abstract representations that are to a

large extent motivated by semantic considerations. I have sought instead to postulate no

more structure in syntactic representations than can be justified on the basis of syntactic

evidence.

4 Examples are given in a modified version of a widely used standard

orthography: o represents /ə/, u is /o/, c is /č/, and q is /kw/. Phonemic /h/ before a

consonant at the beginning of a word is written as an apostrophe. The distinctively

58

stressed vowel in a word is written with an acute accent if it is associated with high pitch

and with a grave accent if it is associated with low pitch. Phonologically “weak” vowels,

ignored by the rules of stress assignment, are marked with a breve. A double hyphen is

used to join an enclitic to its host and to mark the boundary between a preverb or

prenoun—formally a prior member in a compound word—with the word or compound

that it modifies.

The following abbreviations are used in glosses: 1 first person; 2 second person; 3

third person; 3/2, etc. third person subject with second person object, etc.; AN animate;

DIM diminutive; DIR direct; DIST distant; EMPH emphasis; FUT future; HES.PRO hesitation

pronoun; II inanimate intransitive; IMP imperative; IN inanimate; inc. inclusive; INV

inverse; LOC locative; MPL multi-plural; N suffix -(ŏ)n(e)-, with several functions; NF

noun final (noun-forming suffix); NOM nominalizer; OBV obviative; PL plural; POSS

possessed; PROX proximate; RECIP reciprocal; REPORT reportative; SG singular; TA

transitive animate; TH thematic suffix; UNSPEC unspecified subject. Glosses are given in

parentheses for morphemes that have no surface segmental shape.

5 Accent is not marked in Francis and Leavitt 2008 or Mitchell 1976. I have added

accent marking and other indications of prosodic features to the examples cited from

these sources, generally following Passamaquoddy norms. The translations given for

these examples are also mine.

6 The only case for which Maliseet-Passamaquoddy nouns are inflected is

locative, as is typical for Algonquian languages. Nouns are also inflected for obviation

(proximate vs. obviative, a matter of relative discourse prominence) and absentativity

59

(where absentative marking indicates that the referent of a noun was formerly present,

formerly possessed, or formerly alive).

7 Examples taken from LeSourd 2007 have been retranscribed and retranslated for

this article and may therefore differ in various ways from the cited source.

8 Even though preverb-verb complexes are compounds, they may be

discontinuously expressed. This is true of etuci-… -léyik ‘when it happens thus’ in (7). In

such cases, the first segment of the compound is written with a trailing hyphen and the

remainder with a leading hyphen to indicate that the two constitute a unit together.

9 Both wàht ‘far off’ and tètt ‘in this or that direction’ also occur on their own as

adverbial particles: wàht amŏníye ‘he went way around’, tètt weckúwyak ‘when it comes

this way’.

10 Francis and Leavitt (2008:136) give this example with wahta, rather than wahte,

apparently employing an alternate form of the word. I have emended the published text to

match the form given in the current version of the online Passamaquoddy-Maliseet

Language Portal (http://pmportal.org/), accessed February 21, 2013.

11 Examples given without an indication of a source are taken from my own field

notes.

12 Bloomfield (1962:439) analyzes Menominee nouns in “local form” as

“adverbials.” Although this term suits many of the functions of locative-marked nouns,

Maliseet-Passamaquoddy locatives are freely formed from bases that include all manner

of nominal inflection: kt-ahtulhawé-nnu-k (2-shirt-1PL-LOC) ‘on our (inc.) shirt’. Thus,

they would seem to be best analyzed as nouns, given that category-changing derivational

60

morphology is not typically added freely to inflected forms. Moreover, locative phrases

may be used to modify nouns, not a typical adverbial function: lamŏkútĭyil yùt kuhútik

‘the sheets on this bed’ (with kuhúti-k, locative of kuhùt ‘bed’).

13 What category a conjunction of unlike categories should be assigned to remains

a highly controversial question. See Pollard and Sag 1994:201-205 and Sag 2003 for

useful discussion of the issue.

14 Here and below I describe word order in Maliseet-Passamaquoddy questions in

terms of movement. I adopt this formulation for expository convenience without

intending a commitment to a movement analysis of the phenomena in question, as

opposed to an analysis in a constraint-based framework like Head-Driven Phrase

Structure Grammar or its successors (cf. Sag 2010).

15 Bruening (2001:184-189) discusses a number of examples under the heading of

“long distance scrambling.” However, many of these actually involve left-dislocated NPs,

since the phrases in question are restricted to clause-peripheral position, as Bruening

notes. His other examples that seem to attest “scrambled” NPs have matrix NPs instead,

namely secondary objects, as shown by the fact that the matrix verb may agree with

them, following the usual pattern of optional agreement with secondary objects.

16 An exception is also made for nominals, such as pronouns or participles

(relative clause forms), that do not take locative endings. For example, tehsahqìw ‘on’ is

typically used with a locative-marked NP, but we find tehsahqìw nìl ‘on me’, with a

personal pronoun that does not take locative inflection. Compare also tehsahqìw kèq ‘on

what?’ in (14), with a question word that lacks a locative form.

61

17 That it is indeed the same suffix -ìw that appears in both locative particles and

adverbs is shown by the fact that forms of both types have alternate forms in -i, used

especially commonly in the Passamaquoddy dialect: lamìw ~ lámi ‘inside, underneath’,

sŏlahkìw ~ sŏláhki ‘unexpectedly, suddenly’. Of course, as a reviewer points out, distinct

suffixes may share a pattern of allomorphy, as do the English plural suffix -s, the

possessive suffix -s, and the third-person singular -s of verbs, all of which alternate on the

pattern -s ~ -z ~ -ǝz. But note that the parallel allomorphy of these English endings has a

phonological explanation: the alternations result from general phonological rules. If there

are two distinct particle-forming suffixes -ìw (and see note 18 for a third), the parallel

treatment of these morphemes will be left unexplained.

18 These quantifiers, like locative particles and adverbs in -ìw, have alternate forms

in -i that show that they are formed with the same suffix: psìw ~ psí ‘all’.

19 Perhaps surprisingly, no locative particles are formed from the common relative

roots (o)l- ‘in (that) manner or direction’ or tol- ‘in (that) location’.

20 The demonstrative yéta that appears in this example is an emphatic form of yèt

‘there (distant)’.

21 A reviewer asks how we can be sure that the demonstrative that introduces a

locative PP is truly a locative form, rather than a deictic associated with the complement

NP. For example, how do we know that we are dealing with ‘here by the lake’ in (34a)

rather than ‘by this lake’? This is shown by PPs with plural complements. In nìt=te qihìw

wikŭwám-ol ‘right there by the houses’, for instance, nìt=te can only be the locative form

62

nìt ‘there’ (here bearing the emphatic enclitic). The demonstrative required as a modifier

of ‘houses’ is níhtol ‘those (in.)’: qihìw níhtol wikŭwám-ol ‘near those houses’.

22 The free ordering typical of adjuncts is found for PP modifiers of nouns in

English: students with long hair in physics classes ~ students in physics classes with long

hair. It is also possible, however, for a language to impose restrictions on the order of

adjuncts. A reviewer notes, for example, that there are constraints on the order of

adjectives in English: a big black cat, *a black big cat.

23 Adjectives in English are a case in point. On the standard analysis (Radford

1988:208-15), APs are adjuncts to N´. Nonbranching APs are typically restricted to

occurring before N´: plentiful students (of physics), *students (of physics) plentiful. A few

adjectives, however, are restricted instead to following N´: students (of physics)

aplenty/galore, *aplenty/galore students (of physics).

24 See Fox and Pesetsky 2005 for a comparable proposal in the Minimalist

framework, Culicover and Jackendoff 2005:143-148 for a proposal in the framework of

Simpler Syntax.

25 There are distributional differences, however, between modifiers in PPs and

NPs. While wàht ‘far off’ and tètt ‘in that direction’ always precede P´ within PP, noun

modifiers like kŏtók (Pass.) ~ kótok (Mal.) ‘other’ or pilèy ‘new’ may either precede or

follow the noun (actually an N´) with which they are construed: Mal. yúhtol kòtŏkil

skitapíyol ‘this other man (obv.)’, yúhtol wasísol kòtŏkil ‘this other child (obv.)’; Pass.

piléyal wikhíkŏnol ‘new books’, níhtol posŏnútĭyil piléyal ‘those new baskets’.